Reudenhop, It’s easy to fall for the idea that liberals are for individual liberties, but what happens when the liberty of one person or group is worth more than another person or group? Furthermore, what do we call it when “they” give a leg-up or special protection to certain people and it’s installed and then enforced by the state? And don’t say social justice. The template of liberty should be granted to all on equal footing but that should be the limit of the states involvement, after that, controlling the outcomes and managing culture is authoritarian. Also, it requires a “hands-on” government to constantly be re-setting the scales. Liberal causes are more inclined to take over versus equalize the playing field. In this light the contemporary use of the word equality is just plain doublespeak. That’s not right, oppressed groups becoming the oppressors don’t balance-out anything except wobble the fabric in new ways. Truth, in this system, is having the courage for society to let go and let the culture define itself. If that happens to oppress certain people, well, I’d take that any day over what we currently have – an external force telling me who is right(er), victim, better, more worthy, who to like, dislike, love hate etc etc. You see, it’s the external force aspect of all this that moves us dreaded and bigoted right wingers to stand up and say “enough.”Posted by aconvosier10

What you are saying "enough" too is your sense of loss. The culture is actually leaving you behind and you are desperate to hold onto your "traditions", even if these traditions are just thinly veiled bigotries. You really do not want true equality because you want to treat some people as inferiors ("deviants" in your lexicon) so you can feel better about yourself and pursue your slanted version of what the culture should be. And you want to use the state to impose your worldview on others and that shows your purported support of individual freedom to be a fraud. A true liberal believes in individual rights and the ability to be treated as an equal in regard to the exercise of those rights. And yes, the state sometimes has to intercede to insure this is possible. Diversity!! Best get used to it. Live and let live.

Liberals like movingtangent and reuben define liberalism as teddy bears and flowers, ice cream and sunsets, walks along the beach.... Liberals and progressives do not support "the power of the individual" . Liberals support the benevolent and all powerful State. In accord with this, liberals supported mandatory sterilization and eugenics in the 1920s, were huge fans of fascist Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, who "made the trains run on time", National "Socialism", and liberals swooned for Stalin as well.... The intellectual roots of liberalism and fascism are intertwined: worship of the State, trumps worship of God. Modern conservatism has myriad roots as well, not all admirable. Posted by BobinVa

Absolute cr@p Bob. You are simply making stuff up. The intellectual roots of liberalism (the word comes from "liberty") are from the English political tradition of Locke/Mill and our very own tradition from the Founders. It has NOTHING to do with fascism, socialism and communism which were not even invented yet. Relying on the state to protect one's liberty (from the government itself and the "tyranny of the majority") is not in the same league as totalitarian regimes that murdered millions in opposition to the concept of rights. Indeed, it is not only historically stupid it is damn insulting. It would be like saying that Conservatives support human sacrifice because Aztec kings supported it as part of their "traditions". Dumb. Just plain dumb.

In Response to Re: What do modern liberals know about their ideological beginnings? : What you are saying "enough" too is your sense of loss. The culture is actually leaving you behind and you are desperate to hold onto your "traditions", even if these traditions are just thinly veiled bigotries. You really do not want true equality because you want to treat some people as inferiors ("deviants" in your lexicon) so you can feel better about yourself and pursue your slanted version of what the culture should be. And you want to use the state to impose your worldview on others and that shows your purported support of individual freedom to be a fraud. A true liberal believes in individual rights and the ability to be treated as an equal in regard to the exercise of those rights. And yes, the state sometimes has to intercede to insure this is possible. Diversity!! Best get used to it. Live and let live.Posted by Reubenhop

In Response to Re: What do modern liberals know about their ideological beginnings? : Reuben, in light of all that our government is doing and attempting to do with regard to the economy, energy, healthcare, etc., do you really believe "true liberals" are in charge?Posted by crzn

Anti-JFK's "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country should do for you"

Reudenhop, It’s easy to fall for the idea that liberals are for individual liberties, but what happens when the liberty of one person or group is worth more than another person or group? Furthermore, what do we call it when “they” give a leg-up or special protection to certain people and it’s installed and then enforced by the state? And don’t say social justice. The template of liberty should be granted to all on equal footing but that should be the limit of the states involvement, after that, controlling the outcomes and managing culture is authoritarian. Also, it requires a “hands-on” government to constantly be re-setting the scales. Liberal causes are more inclined to take over versus equalize the playing field. In this light the contemporary use of the word equality is just plain doublespeak. That’s not right, oppressed groups becoming the oppressors don’t balance-out anything except wobble the fabric in new ways. Truth, in this system, is having the courage for society to let go and let the culture define itself. If that happens to oppress certain people, well, I’d take that any day over what we currently have – an external force telling me who is right(er), victim, better, more worthy, who to like, dislike, love hate etc etc. You see, it’s the external force aspect of all this that moves us dreaded and bigoted right wingers to stand up and say “enough.”Posted by aconvosier10

Liberals like movingtangent and reuben define liberalism as teddy bears and flowers, ice cream and sunsets, walks along the beach.... Liberals and progressives do not support "the power of the individual" . Liberals support the benevolent and all powerful State. In accord with this, liberals supported mandatory sterilization and eugenics in the 1920s, were huge fans of fascist Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, who "made the trains run on time", National "Socialism", and liberals swooned for Stalin as well.... The intellectual roots of liberalism and fascism are intertwined: worship of the State, trumps worship of God. Modern conservatism has myriad roots as well, not all admirable. Posted by BobinVa

All powerful state: ConservativesPraised Hitler and Mussonlini: ConservativesEugenics: ????Intellectual roots of Liberalism: Locke, Hobbes, Mill, all uber-fascists for sure!Worship of the State in God: Conservatives

In Response to Re: What do modern liberals know about their ideological beginnings? : "And you want to use the state to impose your worldview on others" Sound more like what liberals like you want. HmmmPosted by dexter67

This is not as vapid a response as is typical of you. There's a kernel of truth in it, one that evokes the foundation of neo-conservatism (not conservatism in case you're unfamiliar with the term). All philosophies attempt to impose their worldview. However, what is unique about Liberalism is that left to its own devices society would invent Liberalism even if it did not previously exist. Only Liberalism allows for the existence of opposing worldviews, and that alone makes it superior to all others. Conservatism forces people to comply with traditional standards, that by definition are archaic. Liberalism says you're free to do whatever you want so long as it does not violate the rights of others. If it succeeds, then power to you, if it fails then you have no one to blame but yourself. So yes, it is a worldview and it is imposed on others, if by "impose" you mean giving people a choice. No other ism allows the people a choice. By definition.

In Response to Re: What do modern liberals know about their ideological beginnings? : Reuben, in light of all that our government is doing and attempting to do with regard to the economy, energy, healthcare, etc., do you really believe "true liberals" are in charge?Posted by crzn

Clarify this, please.Economy: Saving the banking system prevents choice and opportunity how?Energy: Working to eliminate the stranglehold non-liberal peoples have on us by promoting self sufficient energy policy prevents choice and opportunity how?Healthcare: Raising health to the pedestal that life, liberty, and TPOH enjoy prevents choice and opportunity how?

In Response to Re: What do modern liberals know about their ideological beginnings? : Absolute cr@p Bob. You are simply making stuff up. The intellectual roots of liberalism (the word comes from "liberty") are from the English political tradition of Locke/Mill and our very own tradition from the Founders. It has NOTHING to do with fascism, socialism and communism which were not even invented yet. Relying on the state to protect one's liberty (from the government itself and the "tyranny of the majority") is not in the same league as totalitarian regimes that murdered millions in opposition to the concept of rights. Indeed, it is not only historically stupid it is damn insulting. It would be like saying that Conservatives support human sacrifice because Aztec kings supported it as part of their "traditions". Dumb. Just plain dumb.Posted by Reubenhop

Reuben, your definition of liberalism is shallow philosophical 'goodness and sweetness'. Just as the Democratic Party conveniently forgets it's sordid racist history , modern political liberals claim they represent the Founding Fathers and represent all that is pure and good, and ignore inconvenient facts. Read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. The author traces the solid support of communist and fascist states by American progressives until World War II -- an historical fact that should not be denied today as an inconvenient truth. After WW2 liberals still enabled and supported communist regimes...leftists thought socialism and communism was just 'liberalism sped up'. Fascism is a left wing philosophy; it doesnt fit with the modern conservative notion of limited government, and respect for religion, the family and traditional values.

Goldberg also argues succinctly that Fascism replaces a religion based on a supreme being (God) with a religion based on a supreme State. The new God becomes the will of the people as interpreted and enforced by the State's elite for the people's benefit. Hence the development of the nanny-state political philosophy is a direct descendent of Fascism and features many of its evils. The name "Secular-Progressive" is the term used today. The point is that history shows the roots of modern 'progressive' liberalism, and it isnt all sweetness and light.The point is not that American liberals are evil fascists, but the point is history shows we can't take at face value the liberal's claimed "benevolent" intent for big government.

In Response to Re: What do modern liberals know about their ideological beginnings? : Reuben, your definition of liberalism is shallow philosophical 'goodness and sweetness'. Just as the Democratic Party conveniently forgets it's sordid racist history , modern political liberals claim they represent the Founding Fathers and represent all that is pure and good, and ignore inconvenient facts. Read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. The author traces the solid support of communist and fascist states by American progressives until World War II -- an historical fact that should not be denied today as an inconvenient truth. After WW2 liberals still enabled and supported communist regimes...leftists thought socialism and communism was just 'liberalism sped up'. Fascism is a left wing philosophy; it doesnt fit with the modern conservative notion of limited government, and respect for religion, the family and traditional values. Goldberg also argues succinctly that Fascism replaces a religion based on a supreme being (God) with a religion based on a supreme State. The new God becomes the will of the people as interpreted and enforced by the State's elite for the people's benefit. Hence the development of the nanny-state political philosophy is a direct descendent of Fascism and features many of its evils. The name "Secular-Progressive" is the term used today. The point is that history shows the roots of modern 'progressive' liberalism, and it isnt all sweetness and light. The point is not that American liberals are evil fascists, but the point is history shows we can't take at face value the liberal's claimed "benevolent" intent for big government. Posted by BobinVa

The biggest problem with this post is that it is an uneducated opinion of some uneducated author's opinion which was designed to be sensationalist.

But there's one specific point I want to talk to. The notion of big government. What is big government? Is big government police departments, fire departments, public roads projects, central banking authorities? Or is big government outlawing what forms of sexual acts you and your wife do in your bedroom? While Liberalism's second most significant contribution to society is using the former to benefit all in a rising tide lifts all boats vein, its primary contribution to society is preventing the latter.

The Genesis of Liberalism is The Social Contract which states that the individual cost you bear for a police force, school system is dwarfed by the individual benefit you reap. This is important to keep in mind, for it implies that you willingly give up your freedom to live in lawlessness because it behooves you to do so. However, the coin has two sides. In The Social Contract you also agree not to restrict the individual rights and freedoms of others because you may one day want to exercise those same rights and freedoms (i. e. BJ from wifey).

"is big government outlawing what forms of sexual acts you and your wife do in your bedroom?" Not since about 1870 or so... So, we have liberals to thank for our sex lives?? Who knew? Nice dodge....Posted by BobinVa

In Response to Re: What do modern liberals know about their ideological beginnings? : This is not as vapid a response as is typical of you. There's a kernel of truth in it, one that evokes the foundation of neo-conservatism ( not conservatism in case you're unfamiliar with the term). All philosophies attempt to impose their worldview. However, what is unique about Liberalism is that left to its own devices society would invent Liberalism even if it did not previously exist. Only Liberalism allows for the existence of opposing worldviews, and that alone makes it superior to all others. Conservatism forces people to comply with traditional standards, that by definition are archaic. Liberalism says you're free to do whatever you want so long as it does not violate the rights of others. If it succeeds, then power to you, if it fails then you have no one to blame but yourself. So yes, it is a worldview and it is imposed on others, if by "impose" you mean giving people a choice. No other ism allows the people a choice. By definition.Posted by movingtangent

Funny I was thinking something was off about your post. Then I realized it wasn't incoherent babbling. Someone wrote this for you didn't they? Come on you can come clean. Come on. I should let you get back to being on your way to making your 20 million...hahahahaha

In Response to Re: What do modern liberals know about their ideological beginnings? : What you are saying "enough" too is your sense of loss. The culture is actually leaving you behind and you are desperate to hold onto your "traditions", even if these traditions are just thinly veiled bigotries. You really do not want true equality because you want to treat some people as inferiors ("deviants" in your lexicon) so you can feel better about yourself and pursue your slanted version of what the culture should be. And you want to use the state to impose your worldview on others and that shows your purported support of individual freedom to be a fraud. A true liberal believes in individual rights and the ability to be treated as an equal in regard to the exercise of those rights. And yes, the state sometimes has to intercede to insure this is possible. Diversity!! Best get used to it. Live and let live.Posted by Reubenhop

"A true liberal believes in individual rights and the ability to be treated as an equal in regard to the exercise of those rights." So again Socrates, I ask you.....What Happened To the Democrat Party?

In Response to Re: What do modern liberals know about their ideological beginnings? : Reuben, your definition of liberalism is shallow philosophical 'goodness and sweetness'. Just as the Democratic Party conveniently forgets it's sordid racist history , modern political liberals claim they represent the Founding Fathers and represent all that is pure and good, and ignore inconvenient facts. Read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. The author traces the solid support of communist and fascist states by American progressives until World War II -- an historical fact that should not be denied today as an inconvenient truth. After WW2 liberals still enabled and supported communist regimes...leftists thought socialism and communism was just 'liberalism sped up'. Fascism is a left wing philosophy; it doesnt fit with the modern conservative notion of limited government, and respect for religion, the family and traditional values. Goldberg also argues succinctly that Fascism replaces a religion based on a supreme being (God) with a religion based on a supreme State. The new God becomes the will of the people as interpreted and enforced by the State's elite for the people's benefit. Hence the development of the nanny-state political philosophy is a direct descendent of Fascism and features many of its evils. The name "Secular-Progressive" is the term used today. The point is that history shows the roots of modern 'progressive' liberalism, and it isnt all sweetness and light. The point is not that American liberals are evil fascists, but the point is history shows we can't take at face value the liberal's claimed "benevolent" intent for big government. Posted by BobinVa

I did a quick look at Goldberg and his book. You obviously parrot his views. They are still quite wrong. I would suggest you read other books.

In Response to Re: What do modern liberals know about their ideological beginnings? : Reuben, in light of all that our government is doing and attempting to do with regard to the economy, energy, healthcare, etc., do you really believe "true liberals" are in charge?Posted by crzn

Yes, I do. They just have a more expansive view of rights than most conservatives.

In Response to Re: What do modern liberals know about their ideological beginnings? : "A true liberal believes in individual rights and the ability to be treated as an equal in regard to the exercise of those rights." So again Socrates, I ask you.....What Happened To the Democrat Party?Posted by TeddyffromNH

That is still a primary focus of the Democrats. Indeed, the healthcare debate is rooted in whether we should extend rights to those in need.

In Response to Re: What do modern liberals know about their ideological beginnings? : This is not as vapid a response as is typical of you. There's a kernel of truth in it, one that evokes the foundation of neo-conservatism ( not conservatism in case you're unfamiliar with the term). All philosophies attempt to impose their worldview. However, what is unique about Liberalism is that left to its own devices society would invent Liberalism even if it did not previously exist. Only Liberalism allows for the existence of opposing worldviews, and that alone makes it superior to all others. Conservatism forces people to comply with traditional standards, that by definition are archaic. Liberalism says you're free to do whatever you want so long as it does not violate the rights of others. If it succeeds, then power to you, if it fails then you have no one to blame but yourself. So yes, it is a worldview and it is imposed on others, if by "impose" you mean giving people a choice. No other ism allows the people a choice. By definition.Posted by movingtangent

In Response to Re: What do modern liberals know about their ideological beginnings? : That is still a primary focus of the Democrats. Indeed, the healthcare debate is rooted in whether we should extend rights to those in need.Posted by Reubenhop

While removing the voice of the majority... those in need are granted "special" rights... at a high cost to working Americans. Many (millions) of those in need aren't even citizens but criminals.

If you want me to go to a far off land to fight a foreign aggressor that threatens Mary-Jane, mom, apple pie, rock and roll and God, expect me to be there front of the line. Incidentally, I've already been down range before. Do not expect me to fight for sexual excess, identity politics, secularism, socialism, bossing people around, modern art, rights to express, radicalism...all things the contemporary liberal seemingly support. None of which are worth dying for, believe me.

Constitution, bill of rights i.e. free speech, press, property, life, liberty pursuit of happiness - all those things I am the first one there.

In Response to Re: What do modern liberals know about their ideological beginnings? : Funny I was thinking something was off about your post. Then I realized it wasn't incoherent babbling. Someone wrote this for you didn't they? Come on you can come clean. Come on. I should let you get back to being on your way to making your 20 million...hahahahahaPosted by dexter67

I wrote this on the fly. Are you actually agreeing with something an educated person posted? Let me mark this day down.

20 million sound high to you? I guess benefits claim representative doesn't pay as much as I thought. Its not high for someone who knows and practices proper grammar.

Liberals don't believe in equal opportunity, they believe in equal outcome, and when they don't get it, they say society is unfair and try to change the rules. Their constituents are victims groups, young and naive idealists, and the snobby intellectuals many of them become in middle age. The expensive social engineering projects they constantly tout rarely if ever accomplishes its goals.